The first quote starts a rabbit hole almost immediately:

“John calls his book an apocalypse or revelation, and this title not only describes its content, but classifies it as a recognized type of literature. During the three hundred years between the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes (167 B.C.) and the destruction of the Jewish nation by Hadrian (A.D. 135) Jewish writers produced a series of apocalypses — of which the first and greatest was the Book of Daniel — to encourage Jewish resistance to the encroachments of paganism, by showing that the national suffering was foreseen and provided for in the cosmic purpose of God and would issue in ultimate vindication.”

I have to break in here. I really hate when someone who thinks he’s a scholar writes about something that is clearly not a fact, as if it were a fact. There has been a scholarly argument about when Daniel was written since the 3rd century AD; the first question brought by someone trying to discredit both Christians and Jews. As we’ve learned more through developments in philology and archaeology, the arguments for a 6th century BC writing of Daniel have become much stronger, while the evidence for the later date has been chipped away. Yet, it is still perceived that a 2nd century BC date is the only scholarly way to view Daniel: in other words, if you disagree with the 2nd century BC date you are not a scholar.

Continue reading →